Set a footprint's absolute rotation in degrees using its reference designator to orient components precisely on a PCB.
Set a footprint's absolute rotation in degrees.
Args: reference: Reference designator, e.g. 'U1'. angle_deg: Absolute angle in degrees (0, 90, 180, 270, ...).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| angle_deg | Yes | ||
| reference | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the rotation is absolute (vs relative) and gives example angles, but it omits whether this mutates the board, requires edit permissions, affects connected tracks, or is reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise and front-loaded: one sentence stating the action, followed by a compact Args section. Every sentence serves the agent's need to invoke the tool without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations, the description should disclose mutation behavior for this write-like tool; it does not mention that the board is modified or any prerequisites, leaving a gap for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'reference' is explained as a designator like 'U1' and 'angle_deg' as an absolute angle in degrees with examples (0, 90, 180, 270). This adds clear meaning beyond the bare property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Set a footprint's absolute rotation in degrees.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like flip_footprint and move_footprint, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description only lists arguments; it does not tell the agent when to choose rotate_footprint over flip_footprint, move_footprint, or place_relative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.